Gyanguru Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
This appeal before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals–II), Chennai, which had upheld confiscation, valuation enhancement, demand of duty with interest, imposition of penalties, and appropriation of bank guarantee in respect of imported goods.
The appellant had imported 985 cartons of miscellaneous goods such as birthday candles, chocolate gift bags, paper bags, badminton rackets, and photo frames from China and filed a Bill of Entry declaring a CIF value of USD 16,798.33. Upon examination, customs authorities found that 203 cartons contained cosmetic items requiring a drug licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the related Rules, rendering them prohibited for import. In addition, quantity mis-declaration was detected in certain items, such as shuttlecocks declared as 50 per carton but found to be 50 dozen per carton. It was also alleged that the declared value was incorrect and that the goods were used to conceal prohibited items, making them liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
The adjudicating authority absolutely confiscated goods in 203 cartons, allowed re-export of certain goods on payment of redemption fine, confiscated the remaining 782 cartons with an option of redemption, demanded differential duty with interest, imposed penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, and appropriated a bank guarantee. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the importer’s challenge, leading to the present appeal.
